IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NOS.34682-34683/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGARAJ @ NATARAJ S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT RANGENAHALLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 2. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O AJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT MADDIHALLI VILLAGE DHARMAPURA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. PADMAKKA W/O RAMAPPA D/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT KADRIHALLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 577 602 2. SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA W/O KOMBANNA D/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MALLAPPANAHALLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 3. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 4. SRI H.N.HANUMANTHARAYA S/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 5. SRI H.N.CHITRA D/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADDIHALLI VILLAGE, DHARMAPURA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 6. SMT. KARIYAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS 7. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 8. SMT. NAGAMANI D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 9. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 10. SMT. PUSHPA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 11. SRI VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENTS 6 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT RANGENAHALLI HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 12. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O AJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 13. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.12 & 13 ARE RESIDING AT MADDIHALLI VILLAGE DHARMAPURA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 14. SRI SADANANDA SHETTY S/O NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT MADDIHALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK NOW RESIDING AT KALIDASA NAGARA SIRA GATE, TUMKUR TOWN – 575 602 15. SRI JON MASKARENAS S/O ANTHONI MASKARENAS AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSALAKKE HOUSE CHIKKAMUDANURU VILLAGE KEMMAL MUDAYURU ROAD UPPINANGADI HOBLI PUTTURU TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 577 547 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR IN O.S.NO.33/1997 ON I.A.NOS.7 & 8 DATED 13.07.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-J AND K TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. These two writ petitions by defendant nos.4 & 8(a) are directed against two interlocutory orders both dated 13.07.2017 passed by the trial court in the suit in O.S.No.33/1997. By the impugned orders, the trial court has dismissed I.A.No.7 filed by defendant nos.8(a) & (b) and I.A.No.8 filed by defendant no.4.
2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders.
3. The trial court has dismissed I.A.No.7 with the following reasoning:
“8. Again the defendant no 8(a) and 8(b) filed the same application under order 6 Rule 17 with same reasons sworn in the affidavit as well as same amendment sought in previous application. Counsel for defendant submits that he did not claim the counter claim in this application. But in this application same set of facts is pleaded and stated in the previous application. This court already gave findings on the said subject matter with reasons and disposed of the application. Therefore once again this court cannot consider the same application on same set of facts and reasons. If the such applications are go on filed by the parties to the suit, the matter is endless. Moreover the appellate court remanded the said case for limited purpose for taking a further documentary and oral evidence of the both the parties ”
4. I.A.No.8 is dismissed with the following reasoning:
“8. Again the defendant no 4 filed the same application under order 6 Rule 17 with same reasons sworn in the affidavit as well as same amendment sought in previous application. Counsel for defendant submits that he did not claim the counter claim in this application. But in this application same set of facts is pleaded and stated in the previous application. This court already gave findings on the said subject matter with reasons and disposed of the application. Therefore once again this court cannot consider the same application on same set of facts and reasons. If the such applications are go on filed by the parties to the suit, the matter is endless. Moreover the appellate court remanded the said case for limited purpose for taking a further documentary and oral evidence of the both the parties ”
5. In my opinion, this is not a fit case to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. However, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the orders impugned herein as provided under Section 105 of CPC before the Appellate Court in the event of their filing an appeal against the decree to be passed in the suit. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Petitions disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.